In Orexim Trading Ltd v Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Ltd and others [2017] EWHC 2663 (Comm), the High Court held that a claim under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") where it was not brought by an insolvent company within the jursdiction did not fall within the jurisdictional gateways under paragraph 3.1 CPR PD 6B.

Gowling WLG's finance litigation experts bring you the latest on the cases and issues affecting the lending industry.

Interests of bankrupt's creditors remain paramount

In Pickard and another (Joint Trustees in Bankruptcy of Constable) v Constable, the question before the court was how exceptional the circumstances had to be to postpone an order for possession and sale of a property in which the bankrupt had a 50% share.

The decision in Mezhprom v Pugachev, which was handed down on 11 October 2017, has potentially wide-ranging ramifications for trustees and the private client industry more generally.

Although the judgment is a first instance decision and may be appealed, the approach taken by the judge in this case to the analysis of powers conferred on protectors is an important development.

The Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Act”) provides Trustees in bankruptcy with a number of mechanisms to reverse transactions, entered into prior to a person being declared bankrupt by the court, which have the effect of diminishing a bankrupt’s estate to the detriment of his or her creditors. Antecedent transaction claims aim to recover assets back into the bankrupt’s estate for the benefit of creditors. Some commonly used provisions are transactions at an undervalue, preferences and transactions defrauding creditors.

On 20 October 2017 Registrar Derrett handed down judgment in the case of Thomas v Haederle (unreported), in which she gave reasons for dismissing a bankruptcy petition presented by the debtor (T) in the County Court at Norwich on 4 December 2014, pursuant to s 272 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86), as it then was.

The Facts

The Court of Session has found that the EU Regulations to found jurisdiction for Insolvency proceedings based on COMI do not apply in a purely UK matter.

Bank Leumi (UK) plc (The bank) lodged a petition to make an Administration Order in respect of Screw Conveyor Limited (the company). While the company's registered office was in Birmingham, the bank stated in its petition that the company's centre of main interest (COMI) was in Scotland.

In this case, the claimant brought proceedings against the first defendant claiming damages for breach of a settlement agreement, and an order under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 for the setting aside of the sale of a vessel. It was alleged that the sale of the vessel was a sham designed to put the first defendant’s assets out of the reach of the claimant. The latter claim was also brought against two other defendants, being the purchaser and sub-purchaser of the vessel.

A recent Court of Session case has made clear that a Scottish court cannot wind up or make an administration order in respect of an English registered company, and the same applies to English courts and Scottish companies.

Key Points

• Statutory powers are to be exercised in accordance with a company’s articles of association
• The Duomatic principle cannot simply be used as a bandage to cure a company’s procedural errors

The Facts

This appeal considered whether the sole director of a company, whose articles required two directors for its board meeting to be quorate, could validly appoint administrators under paragraph 22 Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.